From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun Nov 15 17:51:11 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA6AA2F208 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB881A84 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: by lfs39 with SMTP id 39so75534532lfs.3 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:51:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pxEvm921RwOawvKMmKF6zNcpPXwWPIjmdzab8J4sNOk=; b=c5RwUsMPxV0hHGtjBtvL2Nir7ZOvjwNndwZQfhuiEBAVT+i3wuBnaeSdY79rYRwX2A uKSxjBRyZD6rZcaNTPY0gx8iN5/75Prxrc7+79S9XW9HvjKNkYPWJktCgKpfSab9cCuW K/QsZ+AFE3UXSTHs8bhQAG24r6HE6BfIkpBnhgtXrskLbDcvBGNHcv0hnt5FbY70YWu8 islj8yPIr3lb14QqyauxNYHC1m8QEBurbqDv7ulUBVQBqcBxUeyeEw06xyKyqCm6XY2Z fnAr5TEC4y54+v6dNjEb9BDvuf3swiCHREXWnXmSBHam3A/xTOgHkPZrrSiwe8LZP8w3 +rJA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmy670ADcxShOARiy6OWheqqmm/FU0rmpArG3oIW6aNW576L2Wl+B0zHs0zojSi8maKBVVi X-Received: by 10.25.17.232 with SMTP id 101mr14676676lfr.38.1447609868976; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:51:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([89.169.173.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d203sm1394787lfg.39.2015.11.15.09.51.07 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:51:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? To: Adrian Chadd , Dan Partelly References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> Cc: freebsd-current From: Andrey Chernov Message-ID: <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:51:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:51:11 -0000 On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly wrote: >> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? > > Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple > people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the > furthest along code and use wise. > > It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings > and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do > the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and > production. It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code it, not for other reasons. -- http://ache.vniz.net/